Just days after the passing of new York’s Marriage Equality Act, employees at the University of Rochester received a letter saying that the university had changed its benefits plan.
The UR informed its faculty, staff, and retirees that there would be no further enrollment in its domestic partnership benefit plan, which it had offered exclusively to same-sex couples. and employees using the benefit would have until June 30, 2012, the letter said, to show proof of marriage to the university’s benefits office.
“Same-sex couples who do not submit proof of marriage by that date will be ineligible for further coverage and will be dis-enrolled from the plans,” the letter says.
The UR sent out a second letter in October that made some allowances for DP benefits. But the policy change shows how the new law raises questions about domestic partnerships: the biggest being whether they’re still needed.
One UR employee says the policy change was a big reason she married her partner. She says she didn’t want her partner to lose health-care coverage.
“I think it could have been handled better,” she says. “I don’t think they thought through all of the ramifications.”
The UR is not alone in its decision to essentially discontinue DP benefits since same-sex marriage became legal in new York about six months ago. Corning, IBM, and Raytheon provide DP benefits to employees in same-sex relationships in states that don’t permit marriage. But employees in states where same-sex marriage is legal must marry if they want to keep their benefits, says a new York Times report.
About 82 employees are enrolled in the UR’s domestic partnership benefit plan, says Sharon Dickman, a spokesperson for the university.
“We were thinking first about the equality issue,” Dickman says, explaining the change. “Did we want to treat a certain group of people in a special way, if the law had changed and in fact same-sex domestic partners were able to marry?”
Other firms and organizations, including Xerox, RIT, and Nazareth College say they don’t plan to stop offering DP benefits to same-sex or opposite-sex couples.
Eastman Kodak, one of the area’s early supporters of LGBT concerns, said in a written statement, “For years, Kodak has offered domestic partner benefits to same-sex and opposite-sex couples, and we are not making changes as a result of the change in new York State law.”
Rochester’s City Council approved DP benefits in 1994, says Council member Matt Haag, and “there’s been no discussion of changing that benefit.”
Even though it’s not a new item on the menu of benefits employers can offer, there’s still confusion about domestic partnership benefits and who is eligible to receive them.
In 1985, West Hollywood became the first city to pass legislation recognizing domestic partnerships. and in 1999, California Governor Gray Davis, a Democrat, signed the first statewide legislation providing state employees in same-sex relationships many of the legal rights afforded to hetero couples.
DP benefits have become increasingly common; they’re essentially an expected component of benefit plans in US companies. about 37 percent of US Fortune 1000 companies offer DP benefits, according to a recent Wall Street Journal article.
The plans companies offer vary, and so do the enrollment requirements. Some businesses require some kind of proof or affidavit of a domestic partnership before the coverage begins.
There is also a common assumption that DP benefits are intended exclusively for same-sex couples because the couples cannot, in most states, legally marry.
But that’s not true. almost every major health insurance provider offers some type of DP plan to employers that want them. and businesses can offer DP benefits to same-sex couples as well as opposite-sex couples. and they can extend them to dependents. of the employers that provide DP benefits, nearly 60 percent offer them to both same sex and hetero couples, according to the Human Rights Campaign.
Representatives of many state and national LGBT advocacy organizations say new York’s Marriage Equality Act doesn’t negate the need for DP benefits. Equality hasn’t been achieved just because of the new law, they say.
“There are very profound reasons same-sex couples may be compelled or choose not to marry, and these reasons are simply not there for different sex couples,” says Susan Sommer, senior counsel and director of constitutional litigation for Lambda Legal.
One of the more basic reasons, she says, is divorce.
“There is a real difficulty for same-sex couples to dissolve their relationships,” Sommer says.
Divorce wouldn’t be a problem if the couple continued to live in new York. But if they moved to a state that doesn’t recognize same-sex marriage, the couple could become trapped in what Sommer calls a “permanent state of wedlock.” States can’t dissolve a marriage they never recognized as legal.
Considering that new York is an international destination for business, research, and higher education, a person may work in new York City, but live across the border in Pennsylvania or new Jersey. and neither of those jurisdictions grants divorces to same-sex couples.
Marriage for same-sex couples can also adversely impact a person’s immigration status, Sommer says.
“If you’re a different-sex couple and you marry and one of you is not a US citizen, you can apply to adjust your status to get your citizenship in the US,” she says. “That’s not true for same-sex couples.”
Also, a temporary stay such as a student visa could be revoked, Sommer says, if the student marries.
“It could be viewed as an intentional way of staying here and a violation of the terms of your visa,” she says. “These are just some of the kinds of problems same-sex couples still have to grapple with. and it’s simply unfair to ask people to enter into a relationship that remains unequal for health care.”
These unresolved issues may help explain why the UR sent out its second letter, this time on October 12, saying that the university would continue to offer DP benefits if the “employee establishes there would be a significant, imminent detriment to the employee or his/her same-sex partner if they married that would not be experienced in an opposite-sex marriage.”
The letter gives examples of possible hardships, such as the employee’s partner may experience discrimination at work or at his or her residence, or the couple is preparing for an adoption and marriage would jeopardize the process.
The university has had no requests for hardship exemptions so far, say UR spokesperson Dickman.
“I think the university is open to hearing people’s comments, especially as it relates to any more exceptions that we can write in a concrete way,” she says.
Most of the hardships same-sex couples face, even in states where same-sex marriage is legal, are usually caused by the Defense of Marriage Act. While new York recognizes same-sex marriage, the federal government does not. DOMA sits like a cork on same-sex marriage, overriding state legislation.
In addition to complicating divorce, immigration status, and adoption, DOMA creates other problems for same-sex couples that can lessen marriage’s appeal.
For instance, because of DOMA, same-sex couples who marry to receive health-care coverage will pay taxes on the benefit as if it is added earned income. Given the high cost of health-care insurance, the tax can be prohibitive for some couples.
“Don’t get me wrong, marriage is a huge advance for gay and lesbian new Yorkers,” says Lambda Legal’s Susan Sommer. “But the glass is only half full because DOMA still prevents access to a lot of federal rights and protections.”
Though DOMA is being hotly contested in the courts on constitutional grounds, it’s still the law.
“The executive branch has very firmly come out saying it believes that DOMA is unconstitutional and can’t be defended,” Sommer says. “That said, I don’t think we can fall asleep tonight and wake up tomorrow and find that DOMA has ended. I do think its days are numbered, but for now it’s causing a lot of pain to a lot of people.”
But looking at DP benefits as a concern mainly for same-sex couples misses the point, says Anne Tischer, one of Rochester’s long-time LGBT activists. There are many reasons, beyond religious ceremony, why DP benefits are important to opposite-sex couples. and they can have philosophical, political, and economic overtones.
Some people are reluctant to marry because of the legal and financial drama that can accompany divorce, Tischer says. and some middle-age to older-age couples see the security of companionship and a platonic relationship as their priority. why should marriage drive the coverage for health insurance, critics argue.
Tischer says DP benefits should be available to everyone because society’s definition of spouse and family is changing.
“Who fits the 1950′s ‘Leave it to Beaver’ family model anymore?” she says. “If you take away DP benefits, you’re going to force people into convoluted relationships just to obtain health-care coverage.”
James Hansen, a professor at SUNY Brockport, says his former employer didn’t offer DP benefits, and it was one of the main reasons he looked for a new job.
Even though Hansen and his spouse, Brian O’Neill, were married after new York’s law passed, he says many opposite-sex couples need DP benefits.
“If you want to recruit great faculty, you need it,” he says. “I have several friends who are partners in same- and opposite-sex relationships, and they really need this benefit.”
Eliminating DP benefits really showcases the problems with how health-care coverage is obtained in the US, says local marriage-equality activist Todd Plank.
“The problem is not with the relationships,” he says. “The problem is that access to our health-care system is tied to employers. this just shows that it’s a huge issue.”